On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, Chen Ridong wrote:
> On 2024/12/6 13:33, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 6:45 PM Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> In the `mem_cgroup_update_lru_size` function, the `lru_size` should be
> >> updated by adding `nr_pages` regardless of whether `nr_pages` is greater
> >> than 0 or less than 0. To simplify this function, add a check for
> >> `nr_pages` == 0. When `nr_pages` is not equal to 0, perform the same
> >> actions.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > NAK.
> >
> > The commit that added that clearly explains why it was done that way.
Thanks Yu: I did spot this going by, but was indeed hoping that someone
else would NAK it, with more politeness than I could muster at the time!
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> I have read the commit message for ca707239e8a7 ("mm: update_lru_size
> warn and reset bad lru_size") before sending my patch. However, I did
> not quite understand why we need to deal with the difference between
> 'nr_pages > 0' and 'nr_pages < 0'.
>
>
> The 'lru_zone_size' can only be modified in the
> 'mem_cgroup_update_lru_size' function. Only subtracting 'nr_pages' or
> adding 'nr_pages' in a way that causes an overflow can make the size < 0.
>
> For case 1, subtracting 'nr_pages', we should issue a warning if the
> size goes below 0. For case 2, when adding 'nr_pages' results in an
> overflow, there will be no warning and the size won't be reset to 0 the
> first time it occurs . It might be that a warning will be issued the
> next time 'mem_cgroup_update_lru_size' is called to modify the
> 'lru_zone_size'. However, as the commit message said, "the first
> occurrence is the most informative," and it seems we have missed that
> first occurrence.
>
> As the commit message said: "and then the vast unsigned long size draws
> page reclaim into a loop of repeatedly", I think that a warning should
> be issued and 'lru_zone_size' should be reset whenever 'size < 0' occurs
> for the first time, whether from subtracting or adding 'nr_pages'.
One thing, not obvious, but important to understand, is that WARN_ONCE()
only issues a warning the first time its condition is found true, but
it returns the true or false of the condition every time. So lru_size
is forced to 0 each time an inconsistency is detected.
(But IIRC VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() does not behave in that useful way; or maybe
I've got that macro name wrong - we have so many slightly differing.)
Perhaps understanding that will help you to make better sense of the
order of events in this function.
Another thing to understand: it's called before adding folio to list,
but after removing folio from list: when it can usefully compare whether
the emptiness of the list correctly matches lru_size 0. It cannot do so
when adding if you "simplify" it in the way that you did.
You might be focusing too much on the "size < 0" aspect of it, or you
might be worrying more than I did about size growing larger and larger
until it wraps to negative (not likely on 64-bit, unless corrupted).
I hope these remarks help, but you need to think through it again
for yourself.
Hugh
>
> I am be grateful if you can explain more details, it has confused me for
> a while. Thank you very much.
>
> Best regards,
> Ridong
